A Iorio1, M W Skinner2,3, E Clearfield4, D Messner4, G F Pierce5, M Witkop2, S Tunis4. 1. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 2. National Hemophilia Foundation, New York, NY, USA. 3. Institute for Policy Advancement, Ltd, Washington, DC, USA. 4. Center for Medical Technology Policy, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Third Rock Ventures, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gene therapy trial results show potential to cure haemophilia A and haemophilia B. Securing broad access to a cure for a lifelong chronic disease is anticipated to face barriers at the individual and healthcare system levels, which can be partly mitigated by harmonized planning of clinical research studies. The aim of the coreHEM project was to determine the set of outcome measures required to evaluate efficacy, safety, comparative effectiveness and value of gene therapy for haemophilia. METHODS: Modified Delphi consensus process, based on methods adapted from the COMET Initiative. RESULTS: Forty-nine participants (five patients, five clinicians, five researchers, four regulators, three research agencies, six health technology assessors, nine payers and 12 drug developers) took part in the study, with over 90% participation. The frequency of bleeds, factor activity level, duration of expression, chronic pain, healthcare resource use and mental health were identified as the core outcomes to be measured in addition to regulatory-mandated adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time in haemophilia, a core outcome set has been developed, with the involvement of representatives of all relevant stakeholder groups. The core set has been expanded to include outcomes supporting assessment of comparative effectiveness and value, with the goal of streamlining regulatory approval, health technology assessment and market access decisions. Patient involvement ensures that outcomes are meaningful and relevant to those living with haemophilia. Active dialogue among drug developers, regulators and payers throughout the process is expected to facilitate broad uptake of the core outcomes in forthcoming clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: Gene therapy trial results show potential to cure haemophilia A and haemophilia B. Securing broad access to a cure for a lifelong chronic disease is anticipated to face barriers at the individual and healthcare system levels, which can be partly mitigated by harmonized planning of clinical research studies. The aim of the coreHEM project was to determine the set of outcome measures required to evaluate efficacy, safety, comparative effectiveness and value of gene therapy for haemophilia. METHODS: Modified Delphi consensus process, based on methods adapted from the COMET Initiative. RESULTS: Forty-nine participants (five patients, five clinicians, five researchers, four regulators, three research agencies, six health technology assessors, nine payers and 12 drug developers) took part in the study, with over 90% participation. The frequency of bleeds, factor activity level, duration of expression, chronic pain, healthcare resource use and mental health were identified as the core outcomes to be measured in addition to regulatory-mandated adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time in haemophilia, a core outcome set has been developed, with the involvement of representatives of all relevant stakeholder groups. The core set has been expanded to include outcomes supporting assessment of comparative effectiveness and value, with the goal of streamlining regulatory approval, health technology assessment and market access decisions. Patient involvement ensures that outcomes are meaningful and relevant to those living with haemophilia. Active dialogue among drug developers, regulators and payers throughout the process is expected to facilitate broad uptake of the core outcomes in forthcoming clinical trials.
Authors: Akos Herzeg; Graça Almeida-Porada; R Alta Charo; Anna L David; Juan Gonzalez-Velez; Nalin Gupta; Larissa Lapteva; Billie Lianoglou; William Peranteau; Christopher Porada; Stephan J Sanders; Teresa N Sparks; David H Stitelman; Evi Struble; Charlotte J Sumner; Tippi C MacKenzie Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2022-09 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Allison Tong; Braden Manns; Angela Yee Moon Wang; Brenda Hemmelgarn; David C Wheeler; John Gill; Peter Tugwell; Robert Pecoits-Filho; Sally Crowe; Tess Harris; Wim Van Biesen; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Adeera Levin; Aliza Thompson; Vlado Perkovic; Angela Ju; Talia Gutman; Amelie Bernier-Jean; Andrea K Viecelli; Emma O'Lone; Jenny Shen; Michelle A Josephson; Yeoungjee Cho; David W Johnson; Bénédicte Sautenet; Marcello Tonelli; Jonathan C Craig Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Erna C van Balen; Brian O'Mahony; Marjon H Cnossen; Gerard Dolan; Victor S Blanchette; Kathelijn Fischer; Deborah Gue; Jamie O'Hara; Alfonso Iorio; Shannon Jackson; Barbara A Konkle; Diane J Nugent; Donna Coffin; Mark W Skinner; Cees Smit; Alok Srivastava; Fred van Eenennaam; Johanna G van der Bom; Samantha C Gouw Journal: Res Pract Thromb Haemost Date: 2021-03-06
Authors: Philip C Spinella; Nahed El Kassar; Andrew P Cap; Andrei L Kindzelski; Christopher S Almond; Alan Barkun; Terry B Gernsheimer; Joshua N Goldstein; John B Holcomb; Alfonso Iorio; Dennis M Jensen; Nigel S Key; Jerrold H Levy; Stephan A Mayer; Ernest E Moore; Simon J Stanworth; Roger J Lewis; Marie E Steiner Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 3.697
Authors: Robyn Lim; David K Lee; Pierre Sabourin; John Ferguson; Marilyn Metcalf; Meredith Smith; Solange Corriol-Rohou; Hans-Georg Eichler; Murray Lumpkin; Gigi Hirsch; Inhua Muijrers Chen; Brian O'Rourke; Anja Schiel; Nick Crabb; Naomi Aronson; Edmund Pezalla; Marc Boutin; Louise Binder; Linda Wilhelm Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2019-01-04 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Sinead Duane; Akke Vellinga; Andrew W Murphy; Martin Cormican; Andrew Smyth; Patricia Healy; Michael Moore; Paul Little; Declan Devane Journal: Trials Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 2.279